Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Even if we enacted some form of gun control and sat back and just waited for any of these things to happen, it's not as if the gazillion trillion guns will just vanish - they'll still be out there. It will not be hard for the population to put together an armed rebellion.

Although, again, why would they have to? There are so many other ways to remove leaders. I keep on coming back to terrorism, for example. If there are 300 million guns out there and you could kill a leader with 20 (which I don't think is a stretch), why are you so fussed about the millions and millions of other guns?

Would you say there are too many guns out there if that number was 500 million? Is there a number that you would think is too excessive?

As I’ve noted before, be as restrictive with handguns as you want. They kill more people than longarms by more than an order of magnitude, and I would presume it’s the same with injury. There is not an argument for handguns being an effective weapon against tyranny. The most I’ll do here is note if the idea won’t work, such as what we have in Illinois, where they’re restricted, while they’re not in all the surrounding states.

If citizens are given free access to longarms, the number of longarms in circulation is not controllable. There is no way to avoid it.

I believe that easily applies to Russia and the Philippines. (I'd also argue Russia was barely a democracy to begin with).

Turkey is an interesting proposition. Erdogan is moving towards an authoritarian theocracy but a sizable portion of the population wants this. Stranger still, the failed coup of the military was aimed at trying maintain that democracy. That's some amazing irony.

Venezuela: By far the best example. I have a feeling Maduro won't be in power that much longer, though. The entire country is going to shit and nobody supports him. But hey, I could be wrong and we could end up with another Syria.

Still, I want you to note the pattern here: These are not first world countries. These are not Western European countries – our closest analog.

This opinion is hugely unpopular, especially with the Euros, but what’s keeping Western democracy afloat is NATO. Force these countries to defend themselves and watch them all embrace their inner nastiness.

I think it’s hard to say whether the people in Russia or the Philippines support the government because people who don’t end up dead.

My understanding is it’s SOP in Turkey is for leaders to let a coup be attempted every 20 years or so in a bid to consolidate power.

I find myself avoiding the news since this issue is defacto tyranny of the minority, but the trend I'm noticing is we're seeing new avenues of criticism from the public each time, trying to find resonance within society to get some ****ing change.

Yeah, I wonder if this is finally the straw that broke the camel's back? How are you feeling, subego, if you don't mind me asking?

The rhetoric that an 18 year can't buy a beer but can buy an AR-15 in Florida is pretty powerful rhetoric. My position remains: I can't predict with certainty what the outcomes will be of trying x or y, but we need to try something as of yesterday. Doing nothing is just not an option any longer.

Here are possible things that could be tried (in no particular order). Shit over the effectiveness of these if you want, but at this point even if the impact is just ever so slightly positive it's something to build upon, and it's better than nothing.

- voluntary buy-back of AR-15s
- restoration of Obama regulation relating to the sale of weapons to the mentally ill
- bring on the red tape: more rigorous background checks, registration (so long as we have the systems in place to do something useful with this data)
- higher age requirements
- ban the sale at gun shows
- tax the sale of bullets
- ban contributions and lobbying from the NRA

Time to do *something* other than just offering prayers. We can send prayers to those hopefully sketchy individuals that are upset about losing their guns.

I'm with you on most those things except the legal age. Someone can vote and join the army, they should be able to do other adult things such as buy liquor, rent a car, and even a buy a gun. There are plenty of responsible non-crazy 19yr olds.

In this case, the people he was living with probably didn't know him well enough to gauge the crazy, or put it at the feet of "he just lost his mother give him time to recover."

How about more aggressive mental evaluations of our kids? Weed out the wack jobs.

The problem is how to keep guns out of the hands of wack jobs, criminals, and terrorists without infringing on the rights of lawful gun owners.
Trying to screw with our rights is just plain old liberal stupidity.
Why not heavily regulate abortions, since lefties are always whining about taking guns away for the sake of the children.

The first two sentences make sense there, and could be part of an interesting conversation, but then you devolve into meaningless baaaah-baah-blaming of liberals.

This is the part of the argument where I'm supposed to say "conservatives only care about children in the womb", right? Or, conservatives care more about their guns than other people's children? Or, conservatives get more upset about their gun restrictions than people being killed?

At least you didn't offer meaningless thoughts and prayers.

Subego, why handguns as the problem, not all guns? this shooter used an AR-15. Not a handgun, and apparently easier to get in FL than a handgun.

How about more aggressive mental evaluations of our kids? Weed out the wack jobs.

How do we go about identifying a wack job. Anyone who expresses violent thoughts toward other? Like the ones who want to stand liberals in front of a firing squad for treason? There goes the InfoWars audience.

How about anyone being treated for depression? That would, in effect, end up being close to a national gun ban, given how many people in the US are being treated for depression. But a huge number of people go undiagnosed and untreated, and the healthcare system in the US isn't terribly proactive in identifying these people. Nor does it make getting treatment easy or affordable.

There are also the people who don't fit into either group, but could legitimately (at least to some) be classified as wack jobs. The Bundy clan, for instance. Just try taking their guns.

Well, of course. Mass shootings account for a fraction of a percent of people killed or injured with firearms.

Mass shootings are a symptom of a larger underlying disease, and the frequency of mass shootings in the US compared to other industrialized nations is a good indicator that the US has a gun problem. Hence, mass shootings are a condensation point for discussion and simply saying “it's just a small percentage, we shouldn't overreact” is missing the sign of the times.

Gun laws have gone in the exact opposite direction, where it has become easier to buy guns, restrictions to let people with mental health problems buy guns have been lifted, mental health has been defunded, terrorism task forces to deal with white nationalists have been disbanded, … And because the NRA has morphed from a gun owners association to a gun manufacturers association, there hasn't been anyone reasonable to talk to in the gun community to iron out compromises.

How about more aggressive mental evaluations of our kids? Weed out the wack jobs.

If the US had universal health care coverage, you wouldn't just have screenings, but more importantly treatment. Instead, mental health programs are being cut left and right.

If you think mental health is an issue, put your money where your mouth is and urge your Congressperson to fund the necessary programs. Push them to change gun laws so that people who are diagnosed with dangerous mental health issues may not own guns until they have healed.

Originally Posted by BadKosh

Why not heavily regulate abortions, since lefties are always whining about taking guns away for the sake of the children.

Umm... I said “[d]ue to the horrific nature of mass shootings, if we were to set the proportion based solely on the small incidence rate, it wouldn’t be the proper course of action.” [emphasis added]

You are forgetting about positive correlations with other gun-related incidents. If you enforce that guns be properly registered, gun owners properly educated (depending on weapons type) and be held responsible in case e. g. a gun goes missing, then that would reduce not just mass shootings, but gun suicides and other gun crimes.

Umm... I said “[d]ue to the horrific nature of mass shootings, if we were to set the proportion based solely on the small incidence rate, it wouldn’t be the proper course of action.” [emphasis added]

As relatively small as the rate of mass shootings is compared to all shootings, its often infinitely higher than the rate of mass shootings in similarly developed nations. I'd also suggest that gun lovers compare the legislative response employed in the face of terrorist incidents which are far less common than mass shootings.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

I think a change of tactics is needed. Instead of going after the politicians who will always side with money and votes, its time to go after the NRA without mercy. Expose their activity, leak the communications between their lobbyists and politicians and in the media paint them as directly responsible for the lives of these kids in exchange for power and profit. Destroy their reputation, maybe establish a competitor to attack their subscription rates. Their influence can be reduced.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

Why are people responding to my statement keeping the response to mass shootings in line with the incidence rate is incorrect with examples of how it’s incorrect... as if I need to be convinced of the statement I just made?

Why are people responding to my statement keeping the response to mass shootings in line with the incidence rate is incorrect with examples of how it’s incorrect... as if I need to be convinced of the statement I just made?

Everyone's hackles are up because we're having the same futile argument for the umpteenth time?

Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?

Status:
Offline

Feb 19, 2018, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

Aside from votes, money, and 'freedom', the other reason people are against gun control is they're afraid it will work. If it it can be shown to work, then minds can change.

So banning assault rifles may not make a dent in the overall numbers, but if it shows that gun control can work in one area, well that becomes something you can run on. Something you can point to.

I think the issue behind this is a "slippery slope" argument - "if we give up an inch in gun control, they're going to end up taking all of our guns away."

During the last election cycle, my never-owned-more-than-a-Daisy-bb-gun dad talked about buying a handgun, because as soon as Hillary got elected, she was going to take away everyone's guns. "You realize they said that about Obama, and that during his time in office more guns and ammo were sold than practically ever before, right?" I replied. "Yes, but this time it's for real," he tells me.

I think I've said this before, but it seems like a gun owner's greatest fear, and the reason they believe they are most likely to need a gun, is to protect themselves from the government coming to steal their guns.

I think the issue behind this is a "slippery slope" argument - "if we give up an inch in gun control, they're going to end up taking all of our guns away."

It's important to keep in mind that “slippery slope” is literally a logical fallacy and not an argument.

Originally Posted by Laminar

During the last election cycle, my never-owned-more-than-a-Daisy-bb-gun dad talked about buying a handgun, because as soon as Hillary got elected, she was going to take away everyone's guns. "You realize they said that about Obama, and that during his time in office more guns and ammo were sold than practically ever before, right?" I replied. "Yes, but this time it's for real," he tells me.

I think the issue behind this is a "slippery slope" argument - "if we give up an inch in gun control, they're going to end up taking all of our guns away."

I mean, that could be the logical end if banning guns does stop gun crimes. Like anything else, there could be a healthy balance between the two. Aside from the slippery slope argument, it turns into paranoia about the government. We also can't have good gun regulation because Big Brother! (Same reason we don't have universal IDs)

Originally Posted by Laminar

During the last election cycle, my never-owned-more-than-a-Daisy-bb-gun dad talked about buying a handgun, because as soon as Hillary got elected, she was going to take away everyone's guns. "You realize they said that about Obama, and that during his time in office more guns and ammo were sold than practically ever before, right?" I replied. "Yes, but this time it's for real," he tells me.

I may be missing the point of the anecdote but it almost sounds like he wanted only to have it. Unless he thought he'd be out there fighting to keep the 2nd with it.

Originally Posted by Laminar

I think I've said this before, but it seems like a gun owner's greatest fear, and the reason they believe they are most likely to need a gun, is to protect themselves from the government coming to steal their guns.

That's a fear cultivated and exploited by the NRA. It's used to sell guns.

If strict gun regulations come to pass, I think it, like UHC, would be the result of partisan resistance to more moderate solutions, like the ACA. It's a perfect representation of the problem with polarization.

The obvious point: This is the worst school shooting since Sandy Hook
The subtler point: The victims are old enough to share the experience in a meaningful way
The catalyst: Polarization/Energized population since the presidential election

Of course it dripped down to the kids as well. If they've been paying attention to the politics for the past year they've seen marches, protests, and campaigns, and not without success. Why wouldn't they emulate that behavior?

I'm probably overstating things, but we really are in a mini-60s. Even the kids are revolting against the status quo.

One thing I forgot ask: Is there something 2nd amendmenters can point to that was terrible about the assault weapons ban?

The biggest issue was it was based on a made up idea. So called "assault weapons" were legal, semiautomatic firearms that shared only a cosmetic similarity to actual assault weapons, which by definition are fully automatic. The second biggest issue was that it was written by people who lacked the most rudimentary understanding of firearms in general, let alone how firearms work, which led to a lot of fluff and nonsense in the text of the statute. The third, but most damning, was that it focused on mere cosmetic features that had nothing to do with how the weapon worked. For example, most AR-15 type rifles fell under the ban, yet the Mini-14, which looks like a "traditional" rifle did not, yet the only real difference between the two is the outward appearance.

To me - as a (hopefully) scientific thinker, this says that the idea of banning the hardware used in these events wasn't the correct direction to take. And examining the events both during and since the expiration of that ban points to something very important. These events have been primarily focused on people who were alienated by specific groups - or in specific settings - to such an extent that the perpetrators felt that their exceptional violence was warranted.

Let's be clear: you don't make a person a "school shooter" by telling him his haircut is bad. It takes a lot of problems, piled on top of problems. Cruz in Florida had been expelled for his behavioral problems. In the (distant) past, kids with behavioral problems would be routed to a number of different tracks to address their behavioral issues. Kids that were only disruptive usually learned through classical conditioning that disrupting the class meant unpleasant stuff like special assignments, in-school detention, and consequences at home. Today schools have to focus so strictly on standardized test performance that they don't have the resources to even try to redirect disruptive kids. They don't even bother to teach cursive, which is an important neurodevelopmental skill that translates to development of almost every other motor skill a person has.

So if we look at these events sanely, it is easy to see that there are several issues. How does a 19 year old kid get his hands on a firearm that costs hundreds of dollars? How does the school system not plainly see that specific kids are becoming more and more alienated and disruptive - or the system sees this but does nothing useful about it? Why do we guard sporting events and political candidates with armed law enforcement officers, but proudly label schools as "gun free zones," essentially labeling them as "victim zones"?

I don't think anything like a ban on scary looking firearms (which is all the 1994 ban was, and all that Ms. Feinstein is suggesting now) will impact the frequency or severity of these events. I think we need to do something about how we vet purchasers of any firearm. For example, the NICS should have stopped the Virginia Tech shooter, but Virginia law kept the guy's shrinks from submitting their assessments of how he was a danger to himself and others.

As far as I can see from available data, the National Instant Background Check System does not receive all of the specific information it is supposed to get on individuals from ANY of the 50 states, and many do not provide this information in a timely manner. If we fixed this, by itself, we might be able to short-stop future shootings by blocking the shooter from buying a weapon in the first place. Fixing NICS is a start, it's practical, and it shouldn't cause anyone on either side of the debate to flinch too much.